Tournament: UTD | Round: 2 | Opponent:  | Judge:
 

Contention 1: “The Survival Game”

Contemporary education models have proffered a structure which has relied heavily on role playing exercises designed to get students to argue about scenarios as a means of teaching how to deal with situations of conflict. One of the central role playing games used in academia is the “The Survival Game”—sometimes known as “The Lifeboat Game”—where students¶ are assigned to decide who is worthy of survival in a shipwreck: the priest, the lawyer, the¶ pregnant mother, angry teenager, etc.  The game forces students to make arguments on the advantages to placing particular individuals in the lifeboat.  At KU Dr. Harris tried a variation of the game in which he told students to imagine they were a guard at a Nazi prison camp with the ability to choose to save one person from among different types of prisoners facing the gas chamber.   To Dr. Harris surprise the students jumped into intense debates over the advantages to saving the Army Captain who could help maintain prison discipline vs. the Jewish homosexual who was starving to death any way.  Students readily embraced the role playing model and did not question whether they should be making such choices in the first place.  The correct answer to the game is to refuse to make a choice because the underlying assumptions of the scenario mask the unethical acts involved.  These “make a choice” scenario games are a fundamentally flawed pedagogical model.

Iserbyt 2000

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education

The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/MomsPDFs/DDDoA.sml.pdf

This overloaded “lifeboat in crisis”

AND

global workforce economy.

This year’s debate topic is a version of “The Survival Game”.  The topic committee constructed a topic that assigns affirmative debaters in the classroom space to choose which techno-energy type to put into the production lifeboat.  Affirmatives can argue the benefits to choosing one particular type of energy technology over others.  The fact that making those choices masks the underlying question of whether we should be endorsing production as a starting point is ignored as affirmative students make their choices.  The fact that each energy system places burdens on local populations who are effected by the energy choice they make is rendered invisibility.  Affirmative debaters all year take there assignment and try to pick the energy type that offers the most benefits and damages the fewest people in exactly the same way that students argue the benefits for putting particular people in the lifeboat.  Every choice is ultimately tragic.

The ideology of wind technology perpetuates the technology of economic  production

Byrne et al 06

John Byrne is director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy and distinguished professor of energy and climate policy at the University of Delaware. He shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize ¶ Noah Toly is a research associate and Ph.D. candidate in the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware.¶ ¶ Leigh Glover is policy fellow and assistant professor in the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware¶ TRANSFORMING POWER¶ ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, AND SOCIETY IN CONFLICT¶ http://seedconsortium.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/45925604/Byrne_etal.pdf

¶ What are the characteristics of this success? One envied

AND

fulfillment in the ideals of technique (Mumford, 1934; Ellul, 1964; Marcuse,¶ 1964; Winner, 1977, 1986; Vanderburg, 2005).

Wind perpetuates the techno-economic paradigm and entrenches environmental destruction

Byrne et al 09

Relocating Energy in the Social Commons¶ Ideas for a Sustainable Energy Utility¶ John Byrne¶ Cecilia Martinez¶ Colin Ruggero¶ University of Delaware¶ Bulletin of Science,¶ Technology and Society¶ Volume 29 Number 2¶ April 2009 81-94¶ © 2009 Sage Publications

Reminiscent of the institutional alliances that led to

AND

appear mainly to save modernity.

Solar entrenches technological politics

Byrne et al 06

John Byrne is director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy and distinguished professor of energy and climate policy at the University of Delaware. He shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize ¶ Noah Toly is a research associate and Ph.D. candidate in the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware.¶ ¶ Leigh Glover is policy fellow and assistant professor in the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware¶ TRANSFORMING POWER¶ ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, AND SOCIETY IN CONFLICT¶ http://seedconsortium.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/45925604/Byrne_etal.pdf

But PV’s advocates have not embraced the

AND

inputs (and possibly throughputs) than before.

Choosing to increase production of fossil fuels to entrench the conventional energy regime

Byrne et al 06

John Byrne is director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy and distinguished professor of energy and climate policy at the University of Delaware. He shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize ¶ Noah Toly is a research associate and Ph.D. candidate in the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware.¶ ¶ Leigh Glover is policy fellow and assistant professor in the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware¶ TRANSFORMING POWER¶ ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, AND SOCIETY IN CONFLICT¶ http://seedconsortium.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/45925604/Byrne_etal.pdf

Among the most prominent techno-fixes for

AND

rationalizing centralized¶ energy production and distribution.¶

Nuclear techno-economics ignore the consequences of the nuclear fuel cycle

Byrne et al 06

John Byrne is director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy and distinguished professor of energy and climate policy at the University of Delaware. He shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize ¶ Noah Toly is a research associate and Ph.D. candidate in the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware.¶ ¶ Leigh Glover is policy fellow and assistant professor in the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware¶ TRANSFORMING POWER¶ ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, AND SOCIETY IN CONFLICT¶ http://seedconsortium.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/45925604/Byrne_etal.pdf

A second mega-energy idea has been

AND

is surely suspect (Byrne and Hoffman,¶ 1996).

Choosing the energy technologies of the resolution locks us into a cycle of perpetual production and destruction that is rendered invisible by making choices

Byrne et al 06

John Byrne is director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy and distinguished professor of energy and climate policy at the University of Delaware. He shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize ¶ Noah Toly is a research associate and Ph.D. candidate in the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware.¶ ¶ Leigh Glover is policy fellow and assistant professor in the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware¶ TRANSFORMING POWER¶ ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, AND SOCIETY IN CONFLICT¶ http://seedconsortium.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/45925604/Byrne_etal.pdf

With environmental crisis, social inequality, and

AND

¶ of energy-environment-society relations.

Contention Two- Refusing to Choose

Our advocacy is that we should refuse to play the debate game the way we have been told to play it

We believe that we as affirmative students tasked with playing this game have a different choice available—The alternative choice is to refuse to choose.

Iserbyt 2000

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education

The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/MomsPDFs/DDDoA.sml.pdf

In the fall of l972 a small

AND

ultimately refused to do the exercise.

Only refusing the resolution counters the domination of blind obedience

Ocay, 2010

Jeffry V. Ocay, Kritike, 4(1), June, 54-78 “Technology, Technological Domination,¶ and the Great Refusal:¶ Marcuse’s Critique of the¶ Advanced Industrial Society” http://www.kritike.org/journal/issue_7/ocay_june2010.pdf

Because control and domination in the

AND

is indeed expressed in this way.

Left unchallenged, the ethic of production will completely dissolve critical thought- we’ll become passive agents of production.

Ocay, 2010

Jeffry V. Ocay, Kritike, 4(1), June, 54-78 “Technology, Technological Domination,¶ and the Great Refusal:¶ Marcuse’s Critique of the¶ Advanced Industrial Society” http://www.kritike.org/journal/issue_7/ocay_june2010.pdf

Technological 'Rationality, False Needs, and Capita/ism.

AND

expediency and coherence of this system.16 

The AFF opens space and enables radical transformation- refusing the resolution should be considered the ONLY positive act, injecting status quo politics with dissent.

Kellner 10

Douglas M. Kellner is George Kneller Chair in the Philosophy of Education at UCLA

On Marcuse: critique, liberation, and reschooling in the radical pedagogy of Herbert Marcuse

Sobre Marcuse: critica, libertac,ao e reeducagao na pedagogia radical de Herbert Marcuse

http:~/~/www.revispsi.uerj.br/v11n1/artigos/html/html

 An introduction to Marcuse’s

AND

logics, and a complacency to global militarization.